Was War Necessary After Secession?

[ewc]

A question which has bedeviled me since I became interested in the Civil War as a lad was whether this war had to be fought.

The outgoing Buchanan administration, the incoming Republican administration, and the country at large had to deal with this issue. Could not have the 7 Deep South states formed their Confederacy and remained apart for the nonce and the Northern and upper tier slave States remained apart without war?

What thinkest all?

[tulip]

We whites can ponder that question and in the end will probably figure no, there was a better way.

However, I think the descendants of slaves will take a different view. Without the war, their ancestors would have continued to live under the burden of toil and trouble, misery and humiliation, abuse and sadness well into the 20th century. So for them, I say, the war happened none too soon.

[yankeewoman]

In order to give meaning and strength to the government which the American colonies eventually formed, it had to be shown that it was NOT a mere will-o-the-wisp; it had to be shown that it would, could, should survive; that declarations are not made, and constitutions are not brought to fruition for the pleasure of a few, but for the benefit of all. It was not a "gentlemen's club" which was formed; it was a government.

I am not sure that slavery would have existed into the 20th century, however. By the late 1850's, there were cracks forming in that institution. Also, the Missouri Compromise promised to keep slavery below 36/30; if slavery were to be kept in the South, that designation wouldn't leave much room for the expansion of slavery.

I feel that slavery took away initiative. With it, the "property" had no reason to do anything more than the minimal amount of work required for food and shelter, as it was impossible for a slave to better himself when bound as property. Without it, an individual would be able to express their initiative.

[unionblue]

Dear Ed, at no time could the South let there be peace. The North, as shown by her people and her government, had the attitude to let the South go in peace, at the very least, most of the North's citizens had this attitude. But Lincoln COULD NOT let the South go her own way. He had no choice as the Constitution told him he had to defend the nation from enemies from without and within. Then there is that little matter of the South firing on Ft. Sumter. No way could the North let that go by without some kind of response.

Just don't think it could be that the South could leave without some sort of fuss.

Unionblue

[iron_brigade]

Ed,

I'm not trying to be rude but what secession have you been contemplating for the years since you have been a lad?! The Historic record is very clear, in every aspect, that the southern secession of 1860 turned violent in April of 1861.In all seriousness I gotta ask Ed. Just how in the hell could the Federal or common Government have IGNORED... THE... ****............. FIRING...... ON... SUMTER?!?!

Greg

(Message edited by iron_brigade on December 05, 2002)

[ewc]

The time from the election by the whole people which elevated Mr Lincoln to the presidency to the bombardment upon Ft Sumter was a period of over 5 months. It is, I believe, safe to say that this was the most fluid and active political time of the nation's history. And yet all efforts at conciliation, mediation, and discourse failed at a time when noone, (save the extremes of the ultras- and there is everywhere always a lunatic fringe,) wanted peace.

During this time, Buchanan, buffeted continually by events and abandoned by his southern friends, sought desperately for a status quo. Northern Democrats and the Upper Slave states equally desperately sought some kind of compromise. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted no fighting war- they wanted to enjoy their new situation in Washington and fight the war of words and ideas in the political arena- their element and where they now liked their chances. The country as a whole voted by a large margin for candidates (Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell) who would not precipitate a terrible falling out. (I would some day love to discuss what a Douglas or Bell Presidency at this time would have meant.) And lastly, the departing lower south states preferred to be left in peace to embark upon their experiment as an independent slave empire.

Yet despite the earnest desire of the entire nation less a few a catastrophic war came. Connie says the war had to happen to remove the scourge of slavery. Neil says the South would have precipitated the war sooner or later. For Rose, the war was necessary to prevent the Balkanization of the country into weak nationettes. And Greg will simply look at the historical record.

My point in this discussion was to examine decisions made and not made, acts, and choices made by the nation's leaders at this most critical time. After South Carolina's secession, war could have been had at any time, yet 4 months passed. Major Anderson's Christmas Night move of his command from Ft Moultrie to Ft Sumter sent the Palmetto hotheads into a frenzy. What if his efficient and stealthy move had been intercepted? The 'Star of the West' 's relief expedition to Ft Sumter was fired upon by South Carolina batteries in January '61. Captain McGowan's decision to withdraw and Anderson's decision not to fire kept this incident from escalating into war. The taking of the forts, arsenals, customhouses, lighthouses, the mint in New Orleans, and revenue cutters, all belonging to the federal government could have inaugurated war if a curator soldier had resisted or the Buchanan administration demanded their return. What if General Twiggs or the regulars patrolling Texas' frontier had refused surrender to the makeshift Texas secessionist state government? Federal garrisons held Ft Pickens in Pensacola Bay, and Fts Taylor and Jefferson in the Keys, all steadfastly refusing to budge. War could have started over any of these situations, yet the professional soldiers all resisted taking to hostilities and gave the politicians chance and again to work out a settlement. The Buch-aneers continued to look for a middle way.

The attack upon Ft Sumter and its reduction thrust the issue of a fighting war squarely upon Lincoln's lap. He had set up this scenario so that if the shooting started, it would be the Confederates who began the shooting. Now how to proceed depended upon his worthy consideration. Looking back in time at the great Civil War, how can one not see what is so prominent- this most bloody and frightful war? How can one consider that it could not have happened, or not have been so great or so horrible? It is hard to ignore and hard to contemplate a time before it took place and think of what might have been. Remember at the time of Ft Sumter's fall, the loyal Union included New England, the Great Lake states, the North West and Pacific states (and a non-slave Kansas,) border Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, as well as Virginia (the whole of), North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. As of April 16, 1861- the Confederacy is a ribbon of Gulf and Lower Atlantic seaboard states and a shrimp dwarfed by the Union colossus. This belligerent act of the Confederacy to take Ft Sumter by force places the Union on the moral high ground as the victim of aggression. An aggression which compromised the sympathies of the upper slave-holding states- states sitting on the fence hoping, praying for moderation and conciliation.

Could not President Lincoln have accepted war yet not moved on the Confederacy, thereby avoiding for the nonce 'coercion' and worked at keeping the upper belt of slave states in the Union as he so successfully did later with the border states? Remember that before his inauguration, he offered WC Rives, a Virginia Unionist, a deal to withdraw the Sumter garrison for assurances that Virginia's secession convention would go home. Secretary of State WH Seward was hard at work trying to reconcile the South, and making assurances to certain Southerners that Ft Sumter would be evacuated. Had he his way, that is what would have been done; that is what Lincoln's top military men (Generals Scott, Wool, and Totten) were telling him was necessary, though not what was necessarily desirable.

Many things before the bombardment of Ft Sumter, (as well as considerations after,) could have avoided or at least delayed the start of war so that some different outcome could have been in the offing. We can't know, it is all surmise; as Greg says- there is the historical record. But for our imaginations, it is a wonderful area for exploration and conjecture- a magnificent 'What if...'

Regards all, ewc

[unionblue]

Ed, been reading over your last response and I must say you give me much to ponder on. I agree with your line that almost everyone wanted peace. The attitude of most people in the North was of that vein and I agree that the Upper South wanted no war. I'll even go with you that if the lower South thought they could, they would like to go their way in peace and develope their new Slave empire.

What would have happened if Lincoln had just let his erring brethern go? He would have been impeached or forced to resign eventually. Or perhaps he might have been permitted to hold office for one term, I can't really say.

What if the South had not fired on Fort Sumter? What if the "Star of the West" had got through and reinforced the fort? I really think the whole harbor was a giant powder keg waiting to explode and no matter how much restraint was shown by the North, eventually the South would have taken action. I think the South HAD to take action to get those Upper Southern States to get on board and leave the Union. And I do think it was a "lunatic fringe" in the South that wanted war at almost any price.

My reasoning is that the "fire eaters" did not want any backsliders back into the Union fold, that anything was worth preserving the institution of slavery, even war.

As for the notion that Lincoln set up the Fort Sumter 'scenario' attack by prior planning, it just doesn't wash with the man, at least from what I have read. I really belive that Lincoln was just as shocked and horrified at the bloody results of the war as anyone else was and thought the confilict would be resolved quickly.

As for Lincoln accepting a war and NOT moving on the enemies of the Union so quickly, that was not possible if the South was truely determined not to rejoin the Union. Your own statements make it plain that the administration was working very hard to keep states within the Union by compromise and repeated reassurances to the men in charge of the South.

But Lincoln never put aside the idea that the Union and the preservation of same was the ultimate goal. Gen. Scott, Wool and others may have lost sight of the political goal by becoming emeshed in military details, but Lincoln did not.

Sorry Ed, no matter how you slice, between Southern hot heads and Lincoln's determination, war was the only result.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS I like the idea of discussing the idea if Douglas had won the 1860 election if war could have been avoided. Maybe on another thread?

(Message edited by unionblue on December 13, 2002)

[ewc]

Neil

You raise very good points. I will not tackle them all just now, but will start. I should first say that I should have introduced this topic more concisely. I originally made no mention of Ft Sumter and only secession so as to discuss choices, actions, and events up to that fateful day, which could only inaugurate war. But up until that time, there was no shooting war, and each such day might lead to another, then another- and until the shooting started, well perhaps it could be avoided for just another day, and perhaps, just perhaps every day!.

Yes, for survival doubtlessly the Confederacy needed the upper tier of slave states, and fully expected them to join. The Southerners considered the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line to be the natural frontier. Many of the actions of the Provincial Congress were taken with just such a thing in mind. They wrote a ban on the importation of slaves into the Constitution, (to the dismay of the fire-eaters who maintained such an act blighted the right to property in slaves, a right for which they left behind the ****ed perfidious Yankees to uphold in the first place.) They elected Jefferson Davis president, a man well known for upholding Southern values in the Senate and well regarded in the upper South, but who cried at the breaking up of the Union. They elected Alexander Stephens vice-president, a man who opposed secession to the last, spoke against it at every turn, and who voted against it in Georgia's convention. Besides honoring the South's most acclaimed statesman with high office, this selection of a moderate and nationalist was obviously a move to woo the border states and it served to show the North that, after all, we're not rabid down here. However, the rabid element went fairly ballistic over this, no doubt the wild wailing and gnashing of teeth was truly epic to behold. They sent emissaries to their brethren slave-holding states to talk, soothe, and cajole. They sent commissioners to Washington to treat of questions pertaining to peace as one civilized nation does with another. The selection of these 'ambassadors' by Davis is interesting; they were Martin Crawford- a moderate of the Stephens stamp and latecomer to secession,-John Forsyth, an outspoken Douglas Democrat, and AB Roman, a Louisiana grandee with strong economic ties to the North. No fire-breather among them. The Confederate Congress also proposed favorable trade offers and blandishments on Mississippi River traffic.

So such were some attempts at moderation and seeking a peaceful way by the Confederates. The Confederacy was not then, (in fact, never was at any time,) a monolith. It had its divisions, and President Davis was going to have just as difficult and aggravating a time as President Lincoln in appeasing, cajoling, and managing the disparate and exasperating factions within his borders. Generally, the Southern attitude was one of wishing to be left in peace. But at the same time, they managed to make very aggressive if not war-like statements and fit actions to words. So wilfully or not, the Confederacy moved towards war.

Lincoln's situation in many ways was much messier and tumultuous than Davis's. His was a new administration by a new party new to governance. The Republicans themselves represented many disparate elements, a good many of whom did not like nor trust the other. Then there were the Douglas men, the Buch-aneer men, the border and Union slave states- some with sitting secession conventions. There were the reconciliation committees in Congress and the Peace Convention; there were the Crittenden and other peace proposals. And there were guns pointed at United States soldiers serving their country. Whatever the men at the top were going to do was not going to be easy and was not going to pacify somebody and very likely make them blistering mad. It was all Buchanan could do to hold the fort (in a manner of speaking) and hand over a functioning government not at war to the incoming administration. Lincoln had his hands full immediately and sooner. (Many of his countrymen would liken it to be more like over his head!) Basically, what Lincoln would do with every breath would determine the fate of the republic.

As to Lincoln's handling of the Ft Sumter crisis, what I meant was that his decision was to send only supplies to the garrison and not land troops. He thus showed that he would hold his ground, feed his soldiers, and not otherwise antagonize the Southerners. If shots were to be fired , it would be not he the aggressor nor transgressor, but an official doing his appointed duty. In other words, for a shooting war to break out, it would not be him doing the shooting, but only his men rightly defending their flag. By saying Lincoln 'set it up', I merely mean that he maneuvred the Southerners thus into firing the first shots of any war. He himself would be, and needs be, blameless of such an act. Here again is Lincoln at his finest. He succeeded here as well as he did in most of his undertakings. Where that left him is an issue I would like to take up at a later time.

As to the Union top military men, by the time Lincoln assumed the presidency, they felt that as much as they would prefer to hold on to Ft Sumter- aye, all the forts in their possession- there was no way for it to be done in practicality and the logical course to pursue was its evacuation. This was so because to reinforce or relieve Ft Sumter, ships would have to run batteries commanding the harbor, now an unlikely proposition. This was not the case with the other Southern forts in Union hands- all could be supplied by sea, and General Scott had already taken measures to secure them. Scott is an interesting study during this time frame. He is a Virginian of nationalist sentiment. For him, it was country and country only. Secessionists ****ed him because they knew he would never be with them. (If only Lee had thought like him, what! But Lee for all his service had not the scope, experience, and clarity of vision as Scott, who at this time was by far and all America's greatest soldier.) His headquarters were in New York, so he was out of the picture during the days of cabinet infighting in Buchanan's White House. With South Carolina's secession, he asked Buchanan what shall we do to protect the public weal, but Buchanan did not know his right from his left just then and deferred to consensus in his cabinet. Secretary of War Floyd deliberately kept Scott out of the loop so as to keep Scott and the Army out of political questions where his nationalist sympathies could upset the apple cart. Finally with Anderson's transfer of his command and an increasingly alarmed Buchanan, Old Buck brought him back into the picture. He came to Washington to make sure his voice would be heard. He strongly promoted reinforcing the garrison, and urged it be done immediately. That led to the 'Star of the West' expedition, which rebuffed at Charleston, chugged back to New York, to the immense displeasure of General Scott. He outfitted a new expedition which was not to turn back, but Buchanan had by this time decided it was best to keep Anderson in the harbor, but to not further antagonize the Carolinians. While Buchanan searched for some balance, Scott saw his chances slipping away until there was no way to get into the harbor without very great risk. Thus happened his considered opinion that by the time Lincoln arrived on the scene, his military duty was to present Lincoln the risks and recommend withdrawal in Charleston harbor; the time for reinforcement had passed and for Major Anderson and his men to be brought out of a useless situation. He personally wanted no abandonment, and said so. Lincoln, in the same boat himself, understood.

I've written enough for one night. I'm tired. I will continue this theme later.

ewc

[tulip]

Edward:

I am on my first cup of coffee so may have missed something, but it seems to me that you answered your initial question quite effectively with your last post. To summarize my interpretation of your post: No, the CSA could not be left to its own, because the understanding that Unionists placed on the essence of the American revolution was perpetual union. In the northern mindset, states could not pick up their marbles because they disagreed with the outcome of a legitimate election. Therefore, the act of secession made war inevitable. The only question left was to decide whether that secession was irreversible and I believe it was.

Since Lincoln's ill-conceived "Any people anywhere . . . have the right to rise up" speech during the 1848 presidential campaign, perpetual union was Lincoln's constant and unaltered message to the country. Instead of hearing the message, however, the southern leaders chose to concentrate on Lincoln's rather weak and vague stand on slavery.

IMO the South was well aware of Lincoln's perpetual union position and seceded after the 1860 election knowing that Lincoln would not and could not let them go in peace. While arguments continue to this day as to whether the Founding Fathers designed the Union as "perpetual," the fact remains that Lincoln believed it and designed both his actions and public utterings to express this belief. In essence the timing of secession was a deliberate thumbing to the north, a kind of "We dare you." Naturally, we know today that the south grossly underestimated the obscure and ungainly man they considered a rube and a rude westerner who would take office in March of 1861.

In 1858 William Seward described the two prevalent views in America of the developing sectional conflict. He reported that some, &#34;think it is accidental. unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators and therefore ephemeral . . .&#34; <u>Ephemeral: </u>short-lived, fleeting, transitory, momentary. In other words, many had a bad case of tunnel vision and chose to believe the trouble would go away with the passage of time.

Those who viewed it this way were simply avoiding the reality that Seward and many like-minded men &#40;remember in the prewar Senate Davis and Seward were close friends&#41; saw more clearly, &#34;It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces. . .&#34;

Seward himself was not advocating war. He felt war was unnecessary and to be avoided at all costs. It was Seward after all who proposed the ludicrous device of declaring war on Spain to reunite the states. Nonetheless, Seward recognized the growing chasm and was simply saying that the ideas and institutions, which divided North and South, were both intense and extensive resulting in a natural debate and conflict.

Seward defined the irrepressible conflict as arising from &#34;two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile labor, the other on the basis of voluntary labor of free men.&#34; Seward believed that collisions were bound to occur as the country grew and addressed evolving issues such as westward expansion, railroad building, urban growth, international trade treaties, and of course the ubiquitous slavery question.

Lincoln agreed with Seward and saw the widening breach as irrepressible requiring a resolution. In what many believe was Lincoln&#39;s greatest speech, the second inaugural, Lincoln announced, &#34;All knew that this [slave] interest was somehow the cause of war. . . To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war.&#34; While Lincoln was speaking in hindsight, it is certain that his words reflected what he believed in early 1861.

In the 20th Century Edward Channing argued that slavery created two &#34;irreconcilable sections&#34; in the antebellum years resulting in the South becoming a nation within a nation, &#34;War for Southern Independence&#34; Channing said resulted from the two sides being unable, &#34;to live side by side within the walls of one government.&#34;

Allan Nevin&#39;s agreed and took it further, &#34;the main root of the conflict . . . was the problem of slavery,&#34; along with a related problem of &#34;race adjustment,&#34; concluding that &#34;South and North . . . were rapidly becoming separate peoples. . . With every passing year, the fundamental assumptions, tastes, and cultural aims of the two sections became more divergent.&#34; These differences created a climate, &#34;in which emotions grew feverish; in which every episode became a crisis, every jar a shock.&#34;

David Potter another 20th C historian, however, took a variant view, believing that a compromise allowing slavery to expand and therefore survive would have been &#34;better than war.&#34; He agreed that emancipation was a &#34;good thing,&#34; but pondered, &#34;A person is entitled to wonder whether the slaves could not have been freed at a smaller per capita cost.&#34; Potter felt that the Crittenden Compromise guaranteeing slavery where it existed was the best alternative to war and that slavery had reached its natural limits anyway and would eventually disappear. Therefore to Potter the war was a waste and completely unnecessary as a solution to a strictly political question.

Now if you assume that time created by a stalemate would have allowed peaceful men to come to a resolution, you must also assume that during the standoff, abolitionists would have expanded their work up North and that leaders below the M-D Line would have continued to pursue independence. Therefore how could the work of peace bear fruit in such an unstable and volatile climate? I don&#39;t believe that it could. To effect a compromise there has to be a middle ground where there is agreement. IMO by 1860, the national soil connecting the two sides had been richly plowed for several decades with the combustible nutrients of conflicting goals, societal disagreements, rampant fanaticism and tenacious determinism, which eroded the middle ground, dropping it into the chasm. Stated another way, there was not ground for compromise. The USA would not and could not abandon perpetual union. The CSA would not and could not abandon their bid for independence.

Finally when the Ft. Sumter crisis began heating up, Davis tried to compromise with the Union by compensating the USA for the forts and sent a peace mission to DC. This attempt at peaceful secession ignored Lincoln’s stand on perpetual union . Lincoln could not receive the commission without recognizing the legitimacy of the Confederacy. Thus the Davis peace commission resulted in another impasse, but all the while the pot kept boiling.

Unwilling to accept the standoff, and totally ignoring Lincoln&#39;s determination for perpetual union, Davis acted. In his first erroneous misreading of the North, Davis listened to reports that the Republicans were coming apart and based his actions on this wrong conclusion. He therefore forced the issue by demanding that Sumter be evacuated. He agreed with radical South Carolinians that the CSA could not lose, by reasoning that if the “We dare you” worked, the CSA would exist in peace and if the North took the dare, the Upper South would tumble into the CSA and reinforce its existence with its numbers and resources. Firing on Sumter, of course, worked in the short term. &#34;The thrill of action and triumph rushed through the Confederacy. In the Upper South where secession had been stymied, reconsideration proceeded promptly.&#34; [Cooper pg 366]

In his book <u>The Imperiled Union</u>, Kenneth Stampp says: &#34;There still remains the question of the evitability or inevitability of the Civil War itself - a question that will probably continue to be, as it is now &#40;1980&#41;, unanswerable. It may well be that the country reached a point sometime in the 1850s when it would have been almost impossible to avoid a violent resolution of the sectional crisis. . .&#34; Stampp suggests that during that decade both sides hardened their resolve and set their goals and at some point, &#34;the point of no return&#34; was reached and passed.

I believe that Stampp adequately answers your question in the only way possible: <font color="ff0000">&#34;The irrepressible conflict of antebellum years made the war, if not inevitable, at least an understandable response to its stresses by men and women no more or less wise than we.&#34;</font> [pgs 225 &amp; 245]

&#40;Message edited by tulip on December 15, 2002&#41;

[ewc]

Connie- I have been waiting for you to join in. I was thinking this question was the sort of thing which appealed to you. You too raise very interesting points. It is very hard to see how it is war could have been avoided by 1861. Your quotes of Stampp come to the very heart of the matter. It is true that by 1860 the quest for accord between the two sides of the questions of slavery, states- rights, and secession and union had become less and less tenable. Through the &#39;50s, the issues became less amenable through debate and discourse and more a source of misunderstanding and stubbornness which led to wounded feelings, bitter words and acts, obnoxious behavior which again led to more tensions, misapprehensions, and muleheadedness so that finally precious little ground existed for much understanding and improvement at all! By 1860, each side viewed the other as intransigent, surly, and obnoxious, unable to listen to reason. Each side defended the right- and the other side persisted in error through a sheer perversity of spirit! The American political arena and genius for compromise had only delayed and not answered these questions, and as the tug tightened, the pull of the extremes at either end became more and more pronounced until these were the dominant voices. As well did the stance of the moderates become more and more hardened. The middle ground became quite thin ,and so by 1860, events had led to dissolution, secession, and the threat of war.

However there were still moderates, represented in 1860 election by Tennessee&#39;s John Bell, who received a significant number of votes. Bell&#39;s people of course did not expect to win the election, but believed no candidate might receive enough electoral votes so as to throw the selection of a president into Congress where a compromise might be reached. Bell&#39;s whole platform consisted of basically let us not concentrate on these sectional differences, but live and let live. A significant amount of the citizenry felt this way, North and South. Was this wrong or short-sighted? How can anyone be blamed for wishing to put calm and reason to the forefront and allow tempers to cool? That it didn&#39;t or couldn&#39;t happen is a reason a civil war did happen.

As Connie so well points out, things came to such a pass because of a divergent understanding of the fabric of the nation. One side maintained that slavery is acceptable and therefore extendable to the breadth and width of the country. The other side maintained that slavery is not acceptable ,though it exists where it is, but must not extend throughout the country. One side says secession is an inherent right; the other that Union is paramount. The one is exemplified by secession and the Confederacy which came to be; the other in a Northern president maintaining the Union. From the beginning of the question till the end of the war, the differences were not much amenable to reconciliation. One or the other understanding of Union and secession was going to have to prevail. It&#39;s a shame that the issue could not be decided in the political arena, but must needs have subjected the nation to a dreadful war.

I haven&#39;t touched all your points, Connie, but that&#39;s all I can do for now. Regards, ewc

[thea_447]

Ed,
I looked through these replies and your comments posted on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 07:41 pm, I believe, almost answer your own question.

In the end, Lincoln set up Ft. Sumter with his warships, etc. and waited for the hot-heads of the South to &#34;start&#34; the war.

I,in my heart, believe that the South wanted to leave the Union in peace. They had no desire to overthrow the Union, just to get out of it. Davis sent envoys that were rejected by Lincoln.

I absolutely do not believe, as Connie Boone stated, that slavery would have continued into the 20th century. I absolutely believe that the tariff situation would have continued to bleed the South dry as the Northern industries required their railroads, etc. and certainly didn&#39;t want to pay for it themselves.

What would have happened if the South had been allowed to go in peace is anybody&#39;s guess. Personally I think within 5-10 years the two nations would have formed some sort of compromise that would have allowed them to work side by side, but NEVER as a united nation again.

It&#39;s horrific hindsight to think of all those lost lives when all that was required was to allow the South to leave the Union.

I do not believe that the Union went to war to free the slaves. This thought came to Lincoln when he needed more bodies on the front lines.

One thing is certain: we are a united nation in name only. Reconstruction of the South killed any hope of unanimity once and for all.

[unionblue]

Thea,

In all reality, slavery DID continue into the 20th century, in a reduced form, by way of segregation, Jim Crow laws, separate water fountains and bathrooms, lynchings, etc.

The 1960&#39;s Civil Rights struggle are proof enough for me that in no way would the South get rid of slavery on its own or if it had somehow won the Civil War. If such an attitude toward blacks and their place in society was present in the 60&#39;s with the South having lost the war, how much more worse would it have been for blacks if the South had won?

You also know my feelings on the idea that Lincoln &#39;set-up&#39; the South to fire first at Sumter. Both sides were looking for excuses and both sides seemed to have smart enough counsel to know the consequences of their actions if they fired first, the South included.

Now, my anybody&#39;s guess is that in 10 - 15 years, the South would be in a state of perpetual warfare, with the North and amongst itself, with one State bickering with another, even to the point of armed conflict with one another.

I believe many in the South wanted to leave the Union in peace, but knew the chance of that happening was small to none. Or why buy guns before the act and prepare for war? And the South had been told time and time again that peaceful separation was far from likely. The leaders of secession took a chance and lost, much to the woe of the entire nation.

We are a nation, not just in name only, but in our hearts and minds. Reconstruction of the South did not kill the chance of unanimity for the nation. The inability of those to separate from the past and accept change are the ones who held the country back until the 1960&#39;s and beyond.

Hope you are feeling well.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[tamaroa]

OUCH!! Neil! For the first time ever, I absolutely totally irrefutably disagree with your statement of October 15, 2003.

Please, please, please read C. Vann Woodward&#39;s The Strange Career of Jim Crow. I can assure you having lived in both the north and the south, that the north has nothing to hold its head up about relative to race relations. I spent 7 or 8 years living in SW Virginia. Never once did I see racism or bigotry down there as bad as I see it here on a daily basis.

Reading Woodward was an eye-opening experience for me. The nation as a WHOLE has much to be ashamed about relative to its treatment of the Black. Both the north and the south, the conservative, liberal and populist did anything they could to either disenfranchise the Black or to woo him depending on the era.

After I read that book, I started reading more about Dubois as well as his book The Souls of Black Folk. Northerners and southerners alike should be excoriated for their treatment of the Black man. I believe in all my heart that slavery was on its way out and just needed a push. I think the conflict was inevitable, but it was inevitable for political reasons as well as slavery.

A little off topic but to aim toward your favorite subject, I am reading a really good book about Jefferson Davis now. &#34;Jefferson Davis, American is the title. When Davis was a fledgling politician in the 1840&#39;s he was an elector from Mississippi. He campaigned through the state for the Democratic party and one of the topics he hit the most upon was the Tariff. He was afraid the tariff would drag the south down to its knees. He was eventually elected to a term in the House.

The war settled nothing. Goals change, Lincoln wanted to save the Union, he was losing, he injected slavery into the equation, now there was a morale reason for the war, but guess what, there were no plans for what to do with the free Negro!! When the war was over, the North who wound up fighting to free the slave wanted to keep the freed black in the south on his former master&#39;s farm paid a wage by his former master. That didn&#39;t work out and Blacks started to migrate north. They went to places like Chicago and New York. They were willing to work for less money than the white Irish or German factory worker causing friction in the North.

You know what&#39;s funny. I just thought of this, Its kind of analogous to our situation in Iraq. The democrats are whining that the Bush does not have a strategy for what to do after the the war was fought.
Well the Republicans did not have a strategy for what to do after they won the war. As a result people are still p.o.ed to this day. A little simplistic I admit but you know where I&#39;m coming from.

TTFN

Bill

[johan_steele]

I&#39;ll have to disagree w/ you Bill. Having lived both in the North &#40;actually the upper midwest&#41; and the South. I have never seen racism as in SC or Mississippi. Ironically, some of the worst racism I have seen has been from the black population towards the Asian.

Yes the US has a lot to be ashamed of, we did bad things... but we also did some pretty ****ed good things. I firmly believe that if the Union had failed to subdue the CSA Slavery would exist yet today there. The attitudes haven&#39;t changed all that much in places.

As to President Bush&#39;s exit strategy for the War in Iraq... I wouldn&#39;t trust the media to tie it&#39;s own shoes w/out somehow blaming President Bush for trying to trip them. The Democrats... are still the party of the Copperhead movement.

All of the America haters are dieing in Iraq instead of in Newark or Minneapolis. THe war is being fought there and won there if anyone would bother to check w/ the people who are actually over there doing the fighting.

Lincoln wasn&#39;t given a chance at an exit strategy... a pathetic actor and pro confederate who lacked the courage to fight on the field of battle was quite adept at murdering a president. The South as a whole paid dearly for his actions. Men less likely to believe in reconcilliation or forgiveness than Lincoln took control of the administration.

As to who would have started the war... as I&#39;ve said before, if not Ft Sumter then Kentucky, Texas or perhaps East TN.

[tamaroa]

Shane,

Want to see racism, work and live in NYC!! I&#39;ve been here through many riots including King&#39;s assassination, Crown Heights Riots where ****ins did nothing to stop the tensions, etc. It took something like 9/11 for people to start pulling together. Even now, I still hear and see people disparaging one another. In all my years in Virginia, I never saw what I have seen up here. And there is no way in my opinion that slavery would have gone into the 20th century. Russia freed the serfs in 1861, Brazil freed their slaves in the 1880&#39;s. Do you really think that we are so much less enlightened then those two countries? The conscience of the country was beginning to awaken before the war even started. It is impossible for me to believe that there would still be slavery in the 20th century.

I&#39;ll tell you the same thing I suggested to Neil, read The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Then read some of Dubois. You will see that the southerner did not have a monopoly of racism especially after the war.

Regards,

Bill

[johan_steele]

My experiances have shown me that Virgina is NOT SC or the rest of the deep south. Racism isn&#39;t exactly a new thing nor reserved to the US.

Slavery was an integral part of the economy in the South. Almost every civic leader, politician and even many of the clergy owned slaves. With an average value of $600 per slave and many owning several hundered, slavery was an immense investment. What would replace slavery? The cotton gin and other mechanical advancements only made slavery run agriculture more efficient and profitable.

As to whether slavery would have survived into the 20th Century? I don&#39;t really see why it wouldn&#39;t have w/out the Civil War. There were no real economic incentives and certainly the social incentives were reacted to by Secession. Even when the CSA was lost and all knew it the Confedferate govt balked at arming black men. If desperate needs for men couldn&#39;t get the Confederacy to free slaves than I can think of little else that would. &#40;Arm a man &amp; he is no longer a slave.

I admit I have only visited NYC... didn&#39;t care for the experiance. NYC is not representative of the rest of the country; no matter what New Yorkers might say.

My opinion on how to deal w/ riots... is rather brutal. But then again I was influenced on that point by a man who had spent 15 years in the Soviet Army and grown up in the Soviet Union. Attempting to reform criminals is folly, remove them from society... permenantly if neccessary is the way to go about it.

Of coarse I have similar views on Treason as well, I don&#39;t think I would have been too popular w/ the secesh population in 1865.

[unionblue]

Bill,

Good to hear from you again, my old and dear friend. As to your statement that you totally disagree with my statement of Oct. 15, I do not disagree with your follow-up of Oct. 16, 2003 - 05:43pm.

I agree totally with you the North, just as much as the South, have as much to blame towards having bad attitudes and practices towards blacks, in the 1860&#39;s, 1960&#39;s and today as well. I have no doubt in your claim that you will see LESS racism in the South than you will at present in the North. Stupidity is not confined to a geographic part of this nation.

I will go to the library &#40; I promise on my Yankee soul and my General Sherman/Lincoln shrine in my den&#41; and check out the book you suggest, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by C. Vann Woodward. Honest.

But I, for the present, &#40;as I have been known on this board to step on my foot every once in a while&#41; will maintain that if the South had won the war, slavery would have been around for a long, LONG time.

The idea that such a profitable and successful institution would be voluntarily retired by the men who made money off of it is simply impossible for me to believe at this time. Even with the advent of automation, I feel that custom and habit would have tied blacks to those jobs deemed as too low on the work scale to be done by whites. And the South was all about preserving its culture and way of life, was it not?

But I will get back with you Bill, as soon as I have read the book you suggest, but I have one for you when you get the chance, Time On The Cross, The Economics of American Negro Slavery, by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman. I would love to hear your views on this one when you get the chance.

Take care and until next time,
Sincerely,
Unionblue

&#40;Message edited by Unionblue on October 16, 2003&#41;

[thea_447]

For what it&#39;s worth, I still stand by my original statement. And, at Bill&#39;s suggestion, I long ago bought and read The Strange Career of Jim Crow.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Until I check out the book Bill recommends, what are your thoughts on the book and your conclusions? I would like to know how you view the book and maybe you could give a brief summary in your own words on its subject matter.

Thanks,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Friends,

I offer a part of a speech by one who would surely know if the South would have continued the institution of slavery after the war.

&#34;Slavery, like all other great systems of wrong, founded in the depths of human selfishness, and existing for ages, has not neglected its own conservation. It has steadily exerted an influence upon all around it favorable to its own continuance. And today it is so strong that it could exist, not only without law, but even against the law. Custom, manners, morals, religion, are all on its side everywhere in the South; and when you add the ignorance and servility of the ex-slave to the intelligence and accustomed authority of the master, you have the conditions, not out of which slavery will again grow, but under which it is impossible for the Federal government to wholly destroy it, unless the Federal government be armed with despotic power, to blot out State authority, and to station a Federal officer at every cross-road. This, of course, cannot be done, and ought not even if it could. The true way and easiest way is to make our government entirely consistent with itself, and give to every loyal citizen the elective franchise, --a right and power which will be ever present, and will form a wall of fire for his protection.&#34;

December, 1866, by Frederick Douglass.

You can read the entire speech here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/f...ck/douglas.htm

What do you think of Douglass&#39;s view on the subject?

Unionblue

[tamaroa]

1866 perhaps there might be a smidgin of truth. But a lot of what everybody is saying on this board is based solely on one precept: that southerners are inherently an evil people without the willingness to learn and change.

That I think is doing them a great disservice. We saw southerner&#39;s attitudes already changing then. All my life, I have been taught that slavery was dying out anyway. There was an increase in guilt by southerners resulting in increased manumission. There are numerous quotes from Robert E. Lee on down indicating that slavery was not a just or moral institution. In addition in northern schools, I went to Admiral Farragut Academy, named after a UNION war hero, I was taught that slavery&#39;s existence depended on a one crop economy and that farming methods were changing resulting in a change where multiple crops were grown on the same farm relative to the type of nutrients that the crops both deposited and withdrew from the soil. These factors combined to reduce the need/desire for slavery.

Now how could the current crop of revisionists take these same facts and twist them into a perverted theory that if there had been no war or if the south won, there would still be slavery today? I am going to Barnes And Nobles today Neil and order the book you suggested.
As of this moment, I don&#39;t believe for a minute that slavery would have survived into the 20th century. We &#40;southerners included&#41; are too enlightened a people to allow that to happen. Look where slavery is today around the world and compare those country&#39;s values and mores to ours. :-&#41;

Humpf!!!

TTFN

Bill

[eopfrank]

Bill,
you are right. Slavery wouldn&#39;t have lasted much longer than it did in this country. Who ever thinks that it would have gone into the twentieth century is living in a dream world. If the war was never fought, it would have died within twenty years... &#40; probably even regardless if slavery expanded west&#41;. Lincoln just wanted to get the ball rolling quicker rather than later- which is why he wanted to the west to be of without slavery. It would have eventually died in the states where it already existed. But the Southern leaders, as Lincoln said, would rather make war than let the nation live. It was all about politics- which is why the war had to be fought and which is why the South could never have won&#40;because even though it was about states&#39; rights to choose the legality of such personal property, their cause was not as just as the North&#39;s was for victory&#41;.

-Frank

[unionblue]

Bill &amp; Frank,

Count me in on that dream world, Frank, but I do think I have a few facts that permit that dream to endure a bit. Bill, I do not go with the idea that 1 percent of Southerners were evil. I suggest mainly that they had a way of life that made them money and a good living and was not considered evil or illegal, in their own opinions, so why should they change?

The idea that slavery was on its last legs, on its way out, would not survive, etc., has recently been countered, in my view, by the facts presented by the book Time on the Cross. The book first hit the market in the 1970&#39;s and further information supporting its conclusions come out again in the 1980&#39;s. While true the traditional view that many of us held about slavery being on its last legs in the middle 19th century is still around, it is being challenged by new information and statistics on the institution of slavery.

Research is fun, isn&#39;t it?

Unionblue

[tamaroa]

Neil, the book came in the mail yesterday. I jumped it ahead of several others but have to finish &#34;Jefferson Davis, American&#34; and also &#34;Shut up and Sing&#34; by Laura Ingraham first. I&#39;m about half way through both of them. I browsed through &#34;Time on The Cross&#34; quickly&#34;. I will try to read it with an unbiased mind, but I already don&#39;t like the fact that it appears to be strictly based on mathematics and economics. As we all know emotion, pyschology, guilt all play a role in a country&#39;s affairs. For them not to consider that in the equation is wrong.

Since I just skimmed it and now have to go back and read it in detail, I cannot fully comment on it, but in the beginning they mention 10 factors that indicate slavery was still profitable on the eve of the Civil War, etc. That I have no arguement with. What bothers me is that these guys APPEAR not to take the human element into account. Their economic and mathematical theories about the viability of slavery cannot and do not take into account the fact that their was an awakening in the South of the innate wrongness of slavery and that a social conscience of its evil nature was beginning to emerge. Left alone, I believe that slavery would have ended maybe a decade or two later. But one thing is certain, I am always confused about the underlying motives of our 19th century predecessors. Why would we go to war and kill 620k of our own countrymen to free one race and then go out west and attempt to purge another? I&#39;d like to see these guy&#39;s economic interpretation of that!

YMOS,

Bill

[thea_447]

Bill has brought up some very interesting thoughts in his last few posts. And I particularly liked the Humpf!!! Words can express feelings so well, can&#39;t they?

Neil, this site is going to boil your grits but I mention it as it suggests new reading material. Naturally I know you are not interested in Adams or the Kennedys but the others might be something we should all look into.

As for The Strange Career of Jim Crow, I highly recommend that you read this. I got my copy at Amazon as a used book or either at Goldenbough. I never buy anything new anymore.

Here&#39;s the site I suggest; Neil, you can disregard what the man has to say about the tariff as I know you don&#39;t believe this was a cause of the war, while I will beat that drum until we&#39;re all stone dead. &#60;grin&#62;

Genesis of the Civil War
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html